The First Quarto of Pericles Reconsidered

Abstract

M 4 Y AIM IN THIS ARTICLE is to bring forward new evidence relevant to the textual history of Pericles. Since the publication of Philip Edwards' essay of 1952, the prevailing view has been that the text is essentially a reported one. This view has been embodied in several editions, notably those of Hoeniger and Maxwell, but it is contested by Craig and Sisson, who believe the text to be based on foul papers.' My argument will be that much of the earlier portion of the play, down to sig. E3r, derives from foul papers, while the later portion is reported. I doubt, however, that any single or simple explanation will account for all the features of the text. There are signs that different scenes have different origins, and dogmatism of any kind is very dangerous. I accept Edwards' view that there is a clear textual change on sig. E3r. No reader of the Quarto of Pericles can fail to notice that the compositor of this sheet (Compositor X) is here faced with material of a new kind. It does not follow, however, that Edwards is right in ascribing the change simply to a second reporter. Some of my evidence is based on the spelling of proper names. In considering it, I do not underestimate the haphazard habits of Jacobean printers, and I have based no argument on spelling alone without other support. As will be seen, the peculiarities mentioned are not due to the spelling habits of any one of the three (or perhaps four)2 compositors involved.